None of it matters to me anyway. I don't really care that he went back and forth and maybe didn't say exactly what his handlers meant for him to say and that they are doing a great mop up job behind him. But just imagine, for a minute, if Kerry had said the war on terrorism can't be won, and then turned around and said what you are quoting him as saying.
By Ken Herman
Cox News Service
Tuesday, August 31, 2004
NASHVILLE, Tenn. -- President Bush, tweaking his stump comments about winning the war on terrorism, told veterans Tuesday that the nation now is engaged in a "different kind of war."
"We may never sit down at a peace table but make no mistake about it. We are winning and we will win" he said, drawing applause from attendees at the American Legion national convention. Bush's retooled comments about the war came a day after an interview aired on NBC television in which Bush said "I don't think you can win it" when asked about the battle against terrorism.
On Tuesday, Bush told the veterans, "We will win by staying on the offensive. We will win by spreading liberty."
Flip
Flop
As bad as anything he accuses Kerry of.
Cycloptichorn
As we well know, horn, Bush is prone to misspeak and often has to clarify his remarks.
Then maybe he ought to cut his opponent some slack when he does the same.
yes, that's flip flop , indeed. That is no more for the swing voters.
i'll bet a lot of guys in iraq heard that "we can't" stuff and were, like, wwwhhhhhaaaaaaatttttt the !!@##$$$%%&** !!!!
so it was a smart move for bush to "explain what he meant, when he said.." on rush's show.
they never would have heard it if he went to air america.
hi-ho...
maybe bush is just an idiot....
There you go again JP! Ruining all these quippers fun by sanely interpreting what the President really said. What are you some kind of patriot?
I think we'll have the real answers in...about 4 years by my estimate.
To promote that Bush seriously suggested the war on terror can't be won is appalling journalistic malpractice on the media's part ... but SOP for the Dem rabble...no surprises there.
Well, seeing as how those were his exact words, what would you have them do, report on what they thought he meant?
FreeDuck wrote:Well, seeing as how those were his exact words, what would you have them do, report on what they thought he meant?
well sure, duck. and why not? fox news does it all the time with kerry.
except for hannity. he flat out misrepresents. notice i didn't say lies. guess i'm feeling rather floaty today.
The interesting thing about the president's war-on-terror-is-unwinnable gaffe isn't that George W. Bush is a defeatist or even a hypocrite (in this case), it's that he seems to have no grasp of what's going on.
His statement to Matt Lauer actually makes sense if you interpret "the war on terror" as referring to a generic struggle against the tactic of terrorism.
But while there may have been ambiguity about this phrase in the fall of 2001, it's been well-established since then -- thanks in large part to its being repeated over and over by the Bush administration -- that we're to understand "war on terror" as referring to a battle against a rather specific militant Islamist ideology. A great deal of what Bush has said over the years only makes sense on this understanding of "war on terror," but what he said to Lauer only makes sense on the other understanding.
This is a serious problem.
It's rather important for the President of the United States to have some idea of what he's talking about when the thing he's talking about is supposed to be his signature issue.
It was the kind of thing someone would say only if he hasn't been paying any attention at all to the national security debate that's unfolded since September 11.
What fool ever thinks you can wage and win a war on terrorism?
Come on get a grip. The war is not meant to be "won". The war serves it purpose by being waged.
Quite right Steve. Its what the republicans need to stay in power. A continuous never ending war.
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:Come on get a grip. The war is not meant to be "won". The war serves it purpose by being waged.
"WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH"
better late than never, i guess...
PDiddie wrote:The interesting thing about the president's war-on-terror-is-unwinnable gaffe isn't that George W. Bush is a defeatist or even a hypocrite (in this case), it's that he seems to have no grasp of what's going on.
His statement to Matt Lauer actually makes sense if you interpret "the war on terror" as referring to a generic struggle against the tactic of terrorism.
But while there may have been ambiguity about this phrase in the fall of 2001, it's been well-established since then -- thanks in large part to its being repeated over and over by the Bush administration -- that we're to understand "war on terror" as referring to a battle against a rather specific militant Islamist ideology. A great deal of what Bush has said over the years only makes sense on this understanding of "war on terror," but what he said to Lauer only makes sense on the other understanding.
This is a serious problem.
It's rather important for the President of the United States to have some idea of what he's talking about when the thing he's talking about is supposed to be his signature issue.
It was the kind of thing someone would say only if he hasn't been paying any attention at all to the national security debate that's unfolded since September 11.
That is it exactly, but I think the point will be over the masters of sound bites heads.
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:What fool ever thinks you can wage and win a war on terrorism?
Bush, evidently. He's said so innumerable times (and has already been quoted doing so, but I can go get more.)
